It’s a good time to take a look at how global sea ice is doing at both poles. We were told over and over that the poles are the canary in the coal mine for global warming.

If the sea ice melt trend accelerated, we were warned, then the planet was warming rapidly and societies would be wise to prepare quickly for long-term sea level rise.

But nothing has happened at the poles so far.

Like everything related to climate and weather, there’s a lot of volatility built into the infinitely complex system, and so short term changes should not be viewed hysterically.

It is important to keep the focus on the long term and to keep a rational head. When that is done, then we quickly see that there is nothing to worry about and that all the climate indicators are all well within the normal range of natural variability.

The following chart shows Arctic sea ice coverage anomaly from the mean since satellite measurements began in 1978:
The above chart, from arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere, shows that the Arctic sea ice was in fact quite stable from 1979 to 2002, trending downward only slightly. Then from 2002 to 2007, a period of only 5 years, the sea ice saw almost all of its melting. Over the past 10 years, however, the Arctic sea ice has been stable, even growing some over the past 6 years.

Indeed a number of scientists are projecting the Arctic sea ice to recover as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) enters its negative mode of its typical 50-60 year cycle.

It needs to be pointed out that 35 years is a short period when attempting to derive long term sea ice trends. Let us recall it is known that the Arctic sea ice coverage moves in multidecadal cycles, impacted heavily by natural oceanic cycles.

In the 1950s photos of an ice-free north pole are famous. Old newspaper clippings from the early 20th century quoted scientists who reported “dramatic melting” in the Arctic.

Antarctic accelerating sea ice growth trend

The South Pole has been a real embarrassment for the global warming alarmists who earlier predicted a meltdown. That too has not happened. Instead the Antarctic trend has gone in the totally opposite direction:

The above chart shows that Antarctic sea ice cover has in fact been accelerating upwards. Over the past several months the sea ice has fallen from its record high levels and is now dead normal – for the first time in more than 3 years!

sod,
I fail to grasp the choice of “random” in your comment. To me there appears to have been (what folks call) a step-change from about 2002-2006 (or so; hard to read). Year to year values may be random about the down trend before the step change and after it when there appears to be no trend. If that set of numbers looks like a negative exponential curve to you – perhaps you need to visit an optometrist.
For the Southern Hemisphere I note the multiple crossings of the zero (or mean) line and do not see a step-change so the 3-thingy is a no go. There does seem to be a bit less ice there this summer than over the last 2 years. As yet this doesn’t seem to mean anything. But I’ll get the popcorn ready.

I have found (at least) three terms that seem to be used interchangeably when folks are writing about data series regarding Earth’s systems.
These are: shift, transition, and step-change.
Somewhat related are “swings” and “drifts.”

Insofar as I can tell these have the same precision of definition as do snafu, and WAG. I have not found it necessary to investigate further. I once thought boondoggle was ill defined, but was wrong, so I could be wrong about “step”, also.boondoggle

“So you are dividing the trend in the arctic into 3 random parts that fit your story line, while in the antarctic you decided for a single exponential curve? Wow, just wow!”

Mr. wind turbine salesman, today you learn about something called a “step change” or a “state”. Warmunists have introduced such a concept themselves in the past, calling it a “tipping point”. And yes, it is one possible model. (as a trend is always a model)

Did you go “wow just wow” when archwarmunist Schneider blathered about his tipping point?

“The Arctic sea ice decreased to a record low level in 2007, since satellite observations began in 1979. The decline in the Arctic sea ice from 2005 to 2007 was caused by winds, according to a NASA study. Atmospheric pressure conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the old thick sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then increased its flow rate out of the Arctic along East Greenland. By this the perennial thick sea ice in March 2007 essentially was confined by winds to the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. Consequently, most of the Arctic Ocean was dominated by thinner seasonal ice than usual, melting faster. In addition, this thin ice is more easily compressed and responds more quickly to being pushed out of the Arctic by winds. This thinner seasonal ice conditions facilitated ice loss, leading to the 2007 record low amount of total Arctic sea ice.”

The real shift in Arctic ice was 2002 to 2006. There was no response to the El Nino event in 1998. Is it possible that the ’02 – ’06 is the El Nino event, delayed due to a 4-year time to move warm water from the Pacific through the Bering Straits?

The Arctic melt patterns deserve far for attention than has been given to the simple ice-loss number or percentage. I understand the post-06 high variability is due to thin/non-multi-year ice melting and forming quickly, but the several periods of decreasing and increasing merit answers. The high heat anomaly at the Pacific entrance to the Arctic always intrigues me. So much of “global” warming shows up as regional, I wonder how much is due to ocean circulation changes from the Pacific to the Arctic.

It seems that the warmists accept “local” changes for growth of Antarctic ice, but only global ones for the Arctic loss. I’m hoping this ideological aversion to treating all areas equally reveals an ideology (CAGW) based not in truth (or even physics) but the exception reporting of blinkered, nervous nellies.

According to this flow diagram from Dr. Bernaerts, the Bering inflow in 0.6 Sverdrups (sv) compared to 10 Sverdrups coming from North Atlantic (1 sv is 3.6 km3/hour). That suggests most of the warm water influence comes up the European side.

The Antarctic demonstrates interesting data, since 1978 not only the sea ice increases but the RSS temperature is almost flat, -0,02/decade. NASA reports a net effect of ice mass over the same time. CO2 increases over that period of time by 60 ppm, taken in account that water vapor is negligible one should expect to see some fingerprint(+dT) by the CO2.

Don’t let such important factual evidence get in the way of the great big talkfest about to unfold in Paris n order to achieve a global agreement on controlling fossil fuel energy use. The United Nations has gone well beyond science and into the realms of fantasy, myth and propaganda to convince everyone about a problem that simply does not exist.

I watched a video that proposed the moon’s orbit oscillates slightly between the northern hemisphere and the south. As it ranges north, it drags the ocean currents up into the artic. This results in a multidecadal cycle of ice loss when the orbit is north and growth when it returns south. There is a few years lag, but a good correlation. Sorry, can’t find the link, but the author seemed very knowledgeable.

How about paying attention to what is happening in the biosphere, you know the real world that we all have to live in, the oceans, rivers, agriculture etc.
An interesting study that just came out, based not so much on temperature figures, but Natures response to a warming world.
Blind faith in technology and ignoring Nature is a recipe for disaster.

Sea Ice.
However not just that but warming ocean, especially on the ESS, was 50 methane plumes only a few years ago, now many hundreds, also multiplying methane plumes off the coast of Oregon, Washington, NZ etc as the oceans are warming.
Plus massive forest fires in Siberia, Alaska and Canada in Boreal fires that have not experienced fire in at least 5,000 years due to heat and drying peat bogs and melting permafrost.
But back to sea ice, the important part as most indicative of GHG influence is the winter maximum.

Archives

The Neglected Sun

Red Hot Lies

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy